Managing Threads: Balancing Politics, Religion & Science

[LowlyPion]

I appreciate that managing the threads requires some intricate balance of numerous considerations, from politics to religion, to misusing science for antisocial ends, to shielding students from trash science. And certainly I find no issue with such clear excursions.

But I do wonder at some areas that aren't nearly as clear.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=247428

I'm not sure that it belongs in Social Sciences, nor really in any particular science discipline even, and I agree somewhat that it is not strictly science nor conducted as such. But I do happen to think that it is an interesting topic, and I enjoyed the multi-disciplined range of responses about something that we all may normally take for granted.

Surely if it was good enough for Feynman to comment about it should be worthy of public airing and contribution. Rather than locking in such cases isn't it better to find it a new home outside of a science area?

 

[CompuChip]

Of course the decision is always up to the guys appointed to make the decision :) But I've also seen it happen to one or two threads that I though might be interesting or where I was not sure whether the author was stubborn or just ignorant of physical principles (but willing to learn).

Therefore it might be interesting to know if there is a place where one can report such possibly "unjust" closures and argue about them, in order to convince a moderator to re-open it?
And though obviously it is not the idea to have the moderators spammed by every single topic starter, is it appreciated when the starter of such a closed thread private messages the moderator who closed his thread and asks for explanation or tries to give reasonable arguments as to why it should stay open? Or, for example, opens a new thread - with reference to the closed one - and the (new!) arguments why (s)he should think the discussion is still fruitful?

 

[Evo]

Any decision a mentor makes can be brought up to the mentor privately, then if you do not think you received a proper response, you may hit the "report" button to send a copy of the post/thread into the mentor's forum and all mentors and admins can take a look.

I have changed my mind about closing a thread if I was given a good enough reason to re-open it, sometimes it was a bit of negotiating to change the direction the thread was taking, or edit some of the content to make it acceptable.

Many times, before any action is taken by a mentor, we will have already discussed the thread in question and come to the decision to lock or delete posts or threads.

What you cannot do is create a new thread to re-start a locked or deleted discussion without prior approval of a mentor.

 

[CompuChip]

Thank you Evo, that seems logical, fair and clear enough

 

[Count Iblis]

I think that this is just ridiculous. Especially given the fact that there are so many threads on PF that are not discussing any valid physics at all. And if you go the the section "Earth", you even find a lot of "global warming denial" threads. There a few people who frequently post what we could call "original research", an euphemism for unpublishable nonsense.

 

[Moonbear]

It's under review by the other mentors to determine if there is a suitable place for it. It has been determined that it's NOT discussing physics, and it's NOT discussing social sciences, and really, it doesn't seem to have any more than speculation, which is reason enough for locking a thread. If a suitable place is found, it will be moved and reopened. If not, then it won't. Those who have contacted me by PM have gotten responses as well.

 

[George Jones]

After discussion by a number of Mentors, the thread has been re-opened in the General Physics Forum.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=247428

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks to George for helping sort this out. We're really not ogres. When someone genuinely questions a moderation decision, especially if multiple people question it, we do ask for second opinions from the other mentors, and do admit to mistakes when they are made. I simply had too little understanding of the topic to realize it was misplaced rather than inappropriate for PF. With some help, we've gotten it straightened out and in a proper place now. Also thanks to the folks who PM'd me to bring the error to my attention.

 

[LowlyPion]

Thanks to George for helping sort this out. We're really not ogres. When someone genuinely questions a moderation decision, especially if multiple people question it, we do ask for second opinions from the other mentors, and do admit to mistakes when they are made. I simply had too little understanding of the topic to realize it was misplaced rather than inappropriate for PF. With some help, we've gotten it straightened out and in a proper place now. Also thanks to the folks who PM'd me to bring the error to my attention.

Thanks for resolving it. But I should hope that it wouldn't require multiple people questioning, if the reason of even 1 observation was sufficiently valid. Just a thought.

 

[Evo]

Thanks for resolving it. But I should hope that it wouldn't require multiple people questioning, if the reason of even 1 observation was sufficiently valid. Just a thought.

Even one member questioning is enough, MB was just saying it was maybe two that contacted her. She did start a thread on this immediately in the mentor's forum to ask for input.

MB is very fair BTW, not an ogre, at least not if you give her enough chocolate.

Throws a box of chocolate at MB.

 

[LowlyPion]

Even one member questioning is enough, ...

That's good to know. But since you are soliciting feedback here, I was merely reacting to the notion of "... especially if multiple people question it,... ".

 

[Evo]

That's good to know. But since you are soliciting feedback here, I was merely reacting to the notion of "... especially if multiple people question it,... ".

The more the merrier?

Your post was so well written, it was, by itself, sufficient.

 

[LowlyPion]

The more the merrier?

Your post was so well written, it was, by itself, sufficient.

Now see you found something I can't argue with.

 

[Count Iblis]

What is an "ogre"?

 

[CompuChip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogre

 

[Defennder]

I'm sure he didn't meant that literally. But that's a good start.

 

[Count Iblis]

An ogre (feminine: ogress) is a large, cruel and hideous humanoid monster, featured in mythology, folklore and fiction. Ogres are often depicted in fairy tales and folklore as feeding on human beings, and have appeared in many classic works of literature. In art, ogres are often depicted with a large head, abundant hair and beard, a voracious appetite, and a strong body. The term is often applied in a metaphorical sense to disgusting persons who exploit, brutalize or devour their victims.

Could this mythology be based on encounters of humans with Neanderthals 30,000 years ago?